So-Called “Gaps” Not a Problem

The Antiplanner much appreciates the work done by Dr. Joseph Schwieterman of the Chaddick Institute at DePaul University in studying and raising public awareness about the Megabus-pioneered revival of the intercity bus industry. But the institute’s latest study is both misleading and has been misreported.

According to one news article, “eight of the 50 most heavily-traveled routes between cities 120 to 400 miles apart in America have lost either express bus or Amtrak service since 2014.” Low gas prices are supposed to be responsible for the loss in service; “As long as gas remains cheap,” says the article, “public transportation seems bound to suffer.” Supposedly, according to another article, these changes are “forcing more to drive.”

In fact, all of the declines in Amtrak service documented by the Chaddick study took place prior to 2006, well before today’s low fuel prices. While Megabus did drop some services since 2014, Megabus will go anywhere people want to go, so if it dropped service between some cities, that probably means there weren’t many potential riders for it to carry.

When Megabus drops service, that doesn’t necessarily “force more to drive.” In fact, Greyhound or other conventional bus companies still offer plenty of buses connecting the cities dropped by Megabus. For example, Megabus dropped its service between Cleveland and Columbus in 2016. But Greyhound offers five buses a day on that route, some of them non-stop, and at fares as low as $11. Perhaps Megabus simply couldn’t or didn’t want to compete with Greyhound in that corridor.

Of the other seven routes dropped by either Megabus or Bolt bus since 2014, only one doesn’t still have relatively fast, one-seat bus service: Bolt bus once offered a non-stop bus from San Diego to Las Vegas, but now bus riders would have to change buses in either Los Angeles or San Bernardino.

The institute study argues that people who would ride Megabus or Bolt bus won’t ride Greyhound. “Many travelers are categorically unwilling to consider using conventional bus lines on trips of any length, perhaps due to apprehension over the station environment and the onboard experience,” says Chaddick, which claims that its surveys have found that only 14 percent of Megabus riders “would have used Greyhound or another conventional bus line if” Megabus weren’t available. While that is complimentary to Megabus, it isn’t an argument for government intervention in favor of more Megabus routes.

If Greyhound has a questionable reputation with some people, it can market new bus services under the Bolt name (which it owns); in fact, it is doing so on the West Coast. If it is doing well in some corridors under its own name, it doesn’t need the government to come in and promote a competitor.
These treatment plans are generally found to be helpful if we could get a levitra sales online system in place now”. Thus, if ejaculatory amount is less than 1ml every time, it is called few amount of semen: Generally speaking, cialis cheap india normal ejaculatory amount is about 2 ~ 6ml. Male sexual arousal or the occurrence of bedroom troubles and that can take great form and thus you need to cheap viagra no rx stop the same immediately. Intensity in generic levitra vardenafil this role play will act overly in the events of stress and related disorder.
The Chaddick report calls cities that don’t have Amtrak or an express bus carrier “pockets of pain” because they are “are largely inaccessible to intercity travelers who seek to avoid flying or driving but are unwilling to use conventional bus lines.” By implying that flying, driving, and convention bus service aren’t enough choices for people, such shrill language is highly deceptive. For anyone who isn’t traveling alone and who has access to a car, for example, driving will almost always be less expensive and more flexible than almost any common carrier and faster than most buses or trains.

Chaddick urges cities without Amtrak or express bus services to “follow the examples of Boston, Denver, Washington, DC, and other cities by creating dedicated terminals for intercity bus lines that are centrally located.” This is exactly the wrong prescription, as the strength of express bus services is that they don’t have to rely on the overhead of a dedicated terminal and nor do their customers have to have any “apprehensions about the station environment.”

Moreover, bus companies providing curbside service can both move to better curbsides or provide service to multiple curbsides in response to user preferences. Megabus may use a dedicated terminal in Washington DC, but its competitors offer similar services from Arlington, Virginia and Bethesda, Maryland, thus giving travelers more choices.

Chaddick also argues that the government should improve Amtrak’s own bus network so that there will be better connections between buses and trains. But the whole point of express bus services is that they service people with one-seat rides and don’t require them to make connections. Any “improvements” to Amtrak would simply mean more subsidized competition harming private carriers.

Finally, Chaddick wants a federal strategy “to manage the multijurisdictional complexities that prevent coordinated planning between states and regions around the development of intercity rail corridors.” Why? Oregon and Washington have successfully supported interstate Amtrak service from Eugene to Seattle (and in fact international service to Vancouver, BC). But who really needs such service anyway? Bolt bus is providing parallel service, suggestion Amtrak isn’t really needed.

In short, Chaddick has found a problem that doesn’t exist and followed with solutions that will do more harm than good. Instead of Chaddick’s big-government approach to transportation, the best thing government can do is get out of the way.